Designations at LPC … and Two Decalendarings
On June 23rd LPC held another designation day. In all, two individual landmarks and three historic districts were calendared, one district and 17 individuals were heard, three individual landmarks and a district were designated … and two buildings were decalendared. “Decalendared” isn’t exactly a real word, but we have been using it to describe when a designation has been denied and the property is removed from the Commission’s calendar.
94, 94 1/2, and 96 Greenwich Street were first heard by the Commission in 1965, and a few times since then. The trio were included in the New York Landmarks Conservancy and Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation’s 2004 report of the top thirteen Federal-era row houses to designate, and in 2005 HDC chose them as part of a list of 21 priorities culled from a list of more than 200 heard-but-not-designated buildings. When the buildings were last heard in January 2007, the LPC write up had this to say: “These are among the relatively rare extant Manhattan houses of the Federal period and style, are some of the oldest houses in Manhattan, and are three of only seven pre-1810 houses located south of Chambers Street, the oldest section of New York City, of which they are the only surviving row.” The gambrels roofs of 94 and 94 ½ were raised to create third floors in the 19th-century and similar work was done on 96 sometime in the 1970’s, the description noted that, “despite these, and commercial ground-story, alterations, the houses are recognizably intact as Federal style town houses.”
At Tuesday’s meeting a thorough presentation recommending landmarking was given on #94 by research staff. It was followed by a much shorter presentation on the other two buildings (whose history is the same as 94’s, but was not mentioned), after which staff recommended that they no longer be considered for designation. The 1970’s raising of the roof and addition of studio-like windows at 96 and parging of 94½ were given as reasons why they were no longer landmark quality. Although it was jarringly noticeable in the image of the houses, the recent multi-story, rooftop addition on 96 was not mentioned by LPC staff or commissioners.
All the Commissioners voted to decalendar 96 Greenwich Street. Commissioner Roberta Gratz lamented the unfortunate dilemma caused by an oversight of years ago. Commissioner Stephen Byrnes noted that, while the two could be included in a hypothetical historic district, they did not rise to the level of an individual landmark. Vice Chair Pablo Vangochea though was opposed to doing the same at 94½, feeling that it still related well to 94 and that they were important as an ensemble.
HDC agrees that while they have been altered (as many buildings that are over two centuries old have been, if they are still standing at all), together the three are an important ensemble that better tell their story together, rather than as just a single house. While the Commission has recently landmarked and heard a number of Federal-era rowhouses, these are the only grouping of more than two; one house is singular, two houses are a pair, three are a row.
The decision sets a frightening precedent for other buildings proposed for designation, particularly when owners opposed to landmarking use alterations as an excuse. Commissioner Fred Bland described himself a “reluctant supporter of 94” noting even its changes over the years and pointing to the Ahles House, heard earlier that day, as another example of the difficulty of landmarking altered buildings. The Ahles House, Bayside’s oldest-known remaining house, is an Italianate structure built by a member of the prominent Bell family for his daughter and son-in-law. There was strong community support, including CM Tony Avella who first proposed the house for landmarking in 2002, but the owner’s lawyer listed various alterations that, in their view, made the house not eligible for designation.
It is a rare building that is not altered at some point in its existence, and the LPC regularly allows further alterations through its Certificates of Appropriateness. 94½ and 96 retained much of their essential character and strengthened the significance of 94 Greenwich Street. The fate of an individual landmark can be a lonely one.